Thanks ATC Watcher. Interesting. I think the first thing that needs to happen is understanding the changing, blurring concepts of approaches. In the old days, we had ILS (THE precision approach) and all the others (NPAs). That's changed because now some GNSS approaches are also classed as precision approaches eg GLS.
The new descriptions are
2D and 3D approaches; 2D being lateral guidance only (VORs, NDBs, RNP APCH eg RNAV (GNSS) ) and 3D, being lateral and vertical guidance eg ILS, MLS, GLS, RNP APCH LNAV/VNAV, LPV and RNP-AR.
As I mentioned before, for all intents and purposes, an RNP-AR
is virtually a precision approach because you are required to follow the vertical guidance/path, just as you have to on an ILS. It puts you at 300ft on final 1nm out. A GLS puts you on final at 200ft and 2/3nm out. We should therefore be talking about 2D and 3D approaches now, not Non-Precision and Precision.
As for the idea that a crew would try to use an RNP-AR when they hadn't been trained or approved for it, that equates to gross negligence on the part of the company for not ensuring that it's pilots knew that, as well as the regulator for letting it happen (and of course the crew for being so ignorant).