The monitored approach was SOP at TWA for approaches when visibility was less than 4000 or 3/4. It was also used at American, but has been discarded there for some time. For operators that still retain the ability to fly a CAT II approach to a manual landing, the monitored approach is a much better procedure...it is actually recommended in the FAA's Air Carrier Inspector's Handbook (now 8900.10). However, if autolandings are the SOP for low visibility conditions, then Bergerie1 hits the nail squarely...
I remember using the procedure when flying Metros back in the 80's. On one six leg day, we flew six monitored approaches, and both the FO and myself felt that we were far less fatigued than we might have been using the the more traditional methods.
I do also seem to recall an interesting dinner conversation at an IFALPA meeting in Geneva with Captain Last and a particular Lufthansa captain debating the pro's and con's of monitored approaches...
