Another completely unnecessary hull loss???
Oh how many more hull losses and lives to we need to lose, before ANSPs and operators alike finally realize we need RNP and GLS, to serve every runway end served by air transport? For years now, with LAND3, and AIII modes (and the misnamed CAT III mode in Airbusses), and both GLS and RNP, there is never any need any more to ever land on any runway not best aligned with the wind, as long as it is length and mu adequate. In fact, if needed (as for length or mu), it is now technically possible to safely even do it for many modern types up to the maximum demonstrated capability of the airframe, notwithstanding some present authority imposed conservative AFM values that may apply. There should and can ALWAYS be a guided path both laterally and vertically, to the TDZ, and safely back out, with RNP and GLS, 100% of the time. RNP with GLS can serve all runways at any applicable airport, is vastly better than ILS, is much less expensive than ILS, and is now already available on or could readily be retrofit on relevant modern transport types. Events from from Asiana 214, to the A330 in Nepal on 4 March, to UPS at KBHM, to even the LGA MD88 not potentially landing using Rwy 04 into the wind, instead of facing the XW on Rwy 13 in low mu, could have likely prevented each accident. We are long past the point where flight crews need to ever again be faced with high minima visual illusions, or XWs or TWs on mu limited runways, or needing "duck-unders" for mu. So the authorities, ANSPs, and airlines also own "a piece of this one" for culpability, and not just as always, "blame it exclusively on the pilots".