Tin hat on....an alternative view
So NDB approaches have a percieved less level of safety than an RNAV approach.....and yet no one bitches about them. Where are the calls to remove NDB reversal procedures or make them more safe? Everyone continues to fly them with no issues.
The only issue most people have with RNAV approaches is that they should show distance to missed approach point. Whilst I agree with this proposal, it cannot be done. The RNAV box can only show distance to one waypoint at a time....how do we get you to fly multiple legs of an approach whilst also showing you the distance to the missed approach point? The RNAV box just can't display this information. Alot of people have posted on this forum claiming reduced level of safety on this issue....but no one has come on here with a solution to the problem. It is more than simply publishing the figures because if you can't see those figures on the RNAV box, what use are they to you?
RNAV approaches (standard and non standard) are flown every day with out safety incidents. In fact lately most of the safety incidents seem to be coming from people trying to fly a VOR/DME approach (YMML and YBCG incidents come to mind) which according to the study have a perceived higher level of safety.
I'm no safety expert but I would be leaning toward approach familiarity and complacency being a bigger issue, than the percieved complexity of RNAV approaches.
Just trying to offer an alternative viewpoint on the "RNAV approaches are unsafe" argument. I find this argument to be incorrect. I really do think that lack of education in conducting RNAV approaches is where the fault lies.
Alpha