Peekay4, again thankyou for the information (its interesting to see how the rest of the world deals with this)...and no I am not picking on you. I am really trying to understand the FAA course of action. (I owe you a beer for all the hard questions)
So, after all that,
It appears the example cited to explain the why the FAA are removing VDA's actually meets the criteria and in all likely hood was removed by a flight inspection pilot because he/she got the heeby jeebies about the house on the hill.
I don't know too much about the accident being referred to, but at the end of the day they landed short? Correct? This indicates to me that a whole bunch of things went wrong....not limited to a) following vertical guidance below the MDA b) loss of situational awareness when doing this, which leads to c) poor airmanship.
I am not surprised that they hit the ground whilst following vertical guidance....that's where vertical guidance is supposed to take you. The fact that they didn't hit anything on the way to the ground indicates to me that the other design considerations to protect to the ground are valid as well. If the aircraft had left a smoking hole at the top of the hill and wiped out the house, then we have an argument.
If they missed the house on the hill....which I assume they did....then isn't the house on the hill a bit of a red herring?
3. If stable descent can't be maintained at "one dot low", then VDA will not be published
If stable descent can't be maintained at "one dot low" then the incorrect VDA has been used to design the approach.
Question for everyone. How does removing the VDA make this situation better or safer?