I have no idea what the abbreviation PC1/PC2 means (I was taught to initially qualify all abbreviations in written work with the full meaning).
However,
The Aw139 CFIT/CFIW examples you talk about (I can only think of 2 of them of the top of my head) are not necessarily ones where the kit would have helped. Synthetic vision doesn't see trees, and enhanced vision can't see through fog. If you are flying over water, neither is particularly going to help stop you descending into it.
When you look at what gizmos we have on board compared to what you would have had 20 years ago, there is no comparison, yet we still don't remove the human error element, we just displace it a bit.
I still say the best investment for flight safety is quality training. If crews can avoid poor decision-making, you will rarely need the fancy kit.
Agreed. It's not often the big hill that kills you in the cruise, provided you pre-flight planned correctly (I can think of one notable exception, but again that was a planning issue that should never have happened). It's the unseen tree branch or wire you hit while very close to the ground, when you think you had it all sewn up.