The monitored approach is also good during non-normal situations as it gives the captain the chance to sit back and take an overview of events and in many instances, the captain will have to do the landing anyway due to technical limitations.
Having used this system on BAC1-11s in LVP conditions and having several Cat111 autolands on this type, I can see where BA were coming from, but to apply its use to all approaches is pointless.
How does one cater for a circling or visual approach, or a late landing clearance after MDA/DA?, I know of situations where missed approaches have been flown solely due to over zealous adherence to SOPs leading to nasty conflictions between traffic departing and traffic going around simply because the PF has not heard the magic word "land" by DA (in one instance because the captain was still replying to his landing clearance!!).
I've also seen too many PFs struggling away in VS mode all the way to MDA on a non precision approach while the PNF sits and waits for the "decision" call having had the RWY in sight for the last 10 miles!!
I have come to the conclusion that it should be the captain's decision whether a monitored approach should be flown as he/she is in the best place to make that judgement and it should not be imposed by companies.
Companies that impose monitored approach procedures to be flown for every approach might equally decree that left rudder only may be used in the event of an engine failure to eliminate the risk of using the wrong rudder. It would apply the same logic!