I will not deny that the system could have been designed better but unfortunately without a major overhaul to exisiting system that would leave a lot of GNSS units incompatible with a new RNAV design we will no doubt be stuck with what we have for quite sometime to come.
I believe the original GNSS approaches were designed for the US military and much of the legacy design does back to what was put in place at that time.
I believe if there was a will there would be a way major improvements could be achieved right now. I wonder if some of the problems arise from technocrats rather than pilots/users having the overriding input to approach design.
Why does the Foxtrot have to be at 5 miles or there-a-bouts, why not somewhere like where the profile intercepts the minimum straight in commencement altitude?
Another trap that have resulted from the waypoint designs is the failing of some people to compute in their minds that just because they are within 10/25nm of the IAF that they are tracking to does not necessarily mean they are within the 10/25nm MSA, however that is more so a situational awareness issue.
This is part of knowing how your nav aids work. TAA's and 25nm MSA'a are great things to use provided you use them correctly.
Enough of the thread drift. I think the introduction of SBAS to this part of the world is long over due. When you look at where SBAS is deployed around the world now it makes the south west Pacific area look very third world.