RWY 13 IGS was a fairly easy approach to fly: a LOC and G/S to take you to a pre-determined point at 700' and then SFL to guide you to a 60m wide RWY that had PAPI on both sides and an abundance of approach lights. I thank that the hype came from the fact that the approach meant operation in close proximity to buildings and a lot of journalistic beat-up in the travel press. The IGS was similar to the approach into NVVV. AS a further comparison, the similar IGS into Macau is tighter and less forgiving if you aren't tracking properly. Closer to home, I've seen more people stuff a visual approach to a 5nm final on RWY 16 at YMML than I have the RWY13 IGS.
The appropriate use of automatics as a risk mitigation tool is what is important. Why hand fly at FL370 when it is safer to use the autopilot? It's nice to hand fly an approach, but if you are tired and there are parallel RWY operations, isn't it safer to intercept the LOC with A/P?
During my career, I have flown SHEED in B737, B747, B767 and B777 aircraft. I've never had an issue with it. As for this particular incident, why there is so much discussion? So, what are the facts? A crew flew the approach with A/P connected, VNAV apparently commanded a higher rate of descent than the crew were happy with, the A/P was disconnected and the aeroplane landed safely without any stability parameters requiring a go-around being broken. The crew then self-reported a perceived safety issue.
Big Deal.
