DC-ATE:
And to many others that have commented on non-precision approaches here-
My only comment is if you don't see the runway/airport at minimums, simple; go around. Nothing wrong with non-precision approaches that a little training can't take care of.
Depends upon the non-precision approach and the runway environment.
1. Is the approach guidance provided by a laterally precise landing aid, such as an LOC, LDA, or RNAV; or is it provided by VOR or NDB?
2. Is the lateral guidance aligned with the runway or is it offset, perhaps by as much as 30 degrees?
3. Is there a stepdown fix (or perhaps 2 or 3) in the final approach segment?
4. Does the runway have VGSI, or is the visual segment a black (night) grey (day) hole?
5. Is the operator's procedure to fly a constant descent angle or dive-and-drive?
6. Are the authorized visibility minimums sufficiently low that during minimum visibility conditions visual cues are progressive and marginal?
None of these 6 questions need be asked of an unrestricted ILS or properly designed LNAV/VNAV approach procedure. And, in the U.S. we now have the marvel of LPV operating on more runway ends than ILS.
Finally, RNP AR is fantastic, but the equipage and database validation/maintenance requirements set the bar way too high for many fleets.