JAN-W
iNPA approaches are 'safe' but an RNAV RNP AR approach to RNP 0.1 is safer that is why when flying them you have lower limits.
I think we have a different understanding here. An approach is either safe or it is unsafe. And as you state yourself, the NP approaches have higher minimums to make them safe as the P approaches are with lower minimums.
If you are talking about preferences, that's a different story, but it has nothing to do with safety.
If you are talking about various degrees of proficiency to fly NP approaches for individual crews, that might be the elephant in the room.
You are right, this discussion comes up with accidents like this one and Asiana in SFO, but i dont see the conection between the type of approach flown and the fact, that the aircraft ended with a CFIT short of the runway after droping well below glidepath and like in SFO being well below Vref.
In any approach there are min altitudes, min airspeeds and established procedures involved, some of those have been written in blood over the years. "Stabilized approach criteria and CRM " come into mind.
You deviate from those, and you have a good chance to hit the news some day regardless wether you fly an ILS or a NDB / V approach.