I don't have experience with monitored approaches and therefore I'm not in a position to criticise or praise them, but I don't see how it would have prevented the outcome.
I'm sure that in both systems you simply have to go around if you're not visual by the minima. If the crew elects elect to ignore basic SOP, catastrophe is bound to occur in either system.
sabenaboy, on a monitored approach the FO always flies the approach - if on reaching minima the Captain has not taken over control to land (ie after acquiring visual reference) the FO
automatically performs a Go Around. (The FO is colloquially known as the "Go Around Man" or maybe that should read (ahem) "Go Around Person" now).
I am sticking my neck out a bit here but would suggest that statistics show that airlines which use the monitored approach concept have far fewer accidents on NPAs.
In the promotion of the Monitored Approach we were advised that a survey of approach accidents over a ten year period found that in circa 75% of cases the approach was a NPA
and the Captain was flying the aircraft.
I am not saying this is the sole cause of this accident but venture to suggest that if this crew had been taught and were practised in monitored approaches we would not be discussing this accident now.