Sounds logical, but this is not played out in the outcomes....Unfortunately, 3 out of the 3 CFIT in the 139 (ok, one was not "controlled") involved flight over flat terrain. And multiple aural warnings.... And PC1/PC2 capability
None of them involved being able to see the ground or a representation of it.
As for press on-itis because of the technology, well, yes it happens. The incidence of CFIT in glass cockpits is statistically over represented in GA aircraft.... But is that glass or is that 3d terrain awareness? And does it kill more because of the press on-itis or does it save more through the technology? I wish I had time to look through that sort of data....
But...
It is really just Foot's trolley again.
I faced this very argument time and time again about NVG - "don't introduce NVG because people will just fly into worse weather and press on when they should have turned around". Well, anyone want to take off their NVG now? Has anyone got a single professional organisation on record as removing NVG from the flight line because they thought it was leading their pilots into much more dangerous situations?
I am sure that the aviation industry had the very same natural discussion points when considering the first attitude indicators and autopilots. It is great that at least we have started it around this issue - and I hope that we can robustly consider the virtues as we have done with the introduction of attitude indicators, autopilots, and NVG. That is healthy.
However, ike the introduction of NVG,(which is an actual ground display in accordance with my point) my belief is that the technology will save many more than it takes. Of the ones that it takes - and I agree it will take some, would many of them not have stretched whatever rule/training/permission was in place?
We should not shy shy away from obvious technologies that will greatly enhance the safety of many because of the possible abuse of the few.
I think it may be as simple as this: how many (u)CFITs have we had where the crew can see the ground?