On the subject, it does seem a bit odd that there is a 10nm limit from a fix that in all likelihood the crew has no displayed distance to it (unless they had a GPS-updated FMS). It would be much simpler to have the limit based on the DME.
The Approach is a NDB DME-A. The DME Freq is 115.3. My take is that to complete the approach both the NDB and the DME needs to be working, (or you have approval to use GPS in lieu of DME - not in this case obviously)
As to the Holding pattern distances, I would agree that there is a limit, but it seems poorly described (10NM from D5.0!). In this case it did not have any effect as the approach was joined from the arc.
Unfortunately poor countries in the Pacific struggle to keep the navaids operating, let alone updating to something more "modern" like a VOR. (PNG is a prime example and it has much more resourses and cash than FSM).
WRT the why the ATSB did not address the fact that the Transition Level was at A050 (as someone complained in an earlier post)...I would say that it is not up to the Australian ATSB to make comment on how other States run their airspace, just to comment on how the crew failed to adhere to what was there.
What I take from this as a lesson is that systems knowledge if paramount (crew not understanding that the EGPWS had its own GPS and was not subject to map shift was another a pretty big hole in the cheese after the QNH issue), and that unless it is DAY VMC you do not disregard a hard warning from the EGPS.
Nice to see that the crew have not been slagged off at here on PPruNe, incidents like this are for us all to learn from....especially when one is not flying from ILS to ILS in First World Countries.