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.
NDBs were also created a decades ago. One would have expected that technology of the type used in GPS NPAs would have resulted in a "decades safer" approach.
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.
That's because they
are easier to fly. Get on the radial, there's the distance to the field (all the way from the IAF), just fly down the single profile and you're in. And don't confuse OS Intl crews with Oz pilots; it was a survey of Oz pilots, after all.
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.
Of course it can. Ever noticed the flight plan miles to run? The boxes just needed to be programmed to display the distance to Mike on the main page as well as the next waypoint. Foxtrot doesn't need to be there. The scaling changes
before Foxtrot, and it's a Flyby waypoint so IMO it's not needed. Not having it would solve all the dramas (Ozexpat incoming
).