Decent companies have a decent route manual that describes all these little gotchas; a quick read before you go (route qualification) is all that should be necessary. Modern aviation shouldn't rely on "the continuity of knowledge that needs to be passed on".
Define decent Bloggsy? I dont disagree with you but as an example the outfit I fly for has no mention of the RNP approaches into CNS but still refers to the 33 LOC. Most new Captains who have to do a physical entry into CNS for their training will do it onto 15. I don't know the composition of the crews involved in the incidents but if they had recently been upgraded from WB in the case of QF or had recently returned to flying in the case of VA then the continuity of knowledge that is still an important part of flying into those ports was probably missing.
In the absence of that knowledge then this statement is even more important "The FMC is only as good as it is fed and CHECKED". If the crews did not put in the transition on an RNP approach then where is the cockpit discipline?
The 33 RNP should be coded much earlier than it is but doing a selected or managed descent to that point and actively monitoring the approach should keep you out of trouble. There is a reason that RNP approaches has a requirement for all those cross checks before the approach and during the approach. Unfortunately it is often treated like an ILS and once on a vertical profile it is almost considered to be set and forget. As has been mentioned, an incorrect QNH puts you on a highway to the danger zone. Personally I would rather do an ILS than an RNP. Townsville 01 is a case in point.