Dick, what about WAAS? What price having vertical guidance on a RNAV approach but the self-proclaimed safety experts don't seem to think it necessary. Info (visual or voice) on local conditions is fine but I would much rather vertical guidance than what prevails today.
From the public media announcements I am led to think this aircraft had already made two unsuccessful attempts at landing (presumably RNAV R30) and crashed at about 3.3 nm short of the runway on the third approach. It is known from experience that the chance of a crash increases with the number of approaches made. That is why some airlines forbid flight crew from commencing an approach if the conditions are less than the minima. With WAAS (or whatever it is called these days) that minima can be much lower than our RNAV approaches. From videos posted on-line from GA pilots in the USA their minima with vertical guidance are approaching that of an ILS.
It is time we moved from the dark ages in Australia. There is a wealth of aviation advances around the world that we are ignoring with fatal results.