From SKYbrary Wiki
In my view, it is no longer true to say that “non precision approaches are conducted with limited use of automated systems and require a high degree of piloting skill which necessitates frequent practice”. This may still be so for a few but, whilst the automated systems available on most modern public transport aircraft are not quite as useful for a non precision approach as for a precision approach, they often allow the autopilot to be left engaged until the aircraft is below the applicable Minimum Decision Altitude (MDA).
The continued prevalence of CFIT events on this type of approach has, in my opinion, more to do with the increased concentration required by a flight crew on a procedural non precision approach (one not assisted by radar vectoring onto final approach) to maintain situational awareness compared to the procedural precision approach case. The maintenance of adequate manual flying skills by pilots is certainly an issue but not, I believe, one nowadays particularly related to CFIT during non precision approaches. --Ed.Pooley 01:55, 11 January 2008 (CET)
Textual alterations made to refelect these comments. --Ian.Wigmore 12:50, 6 February 2008 (CET)
a new review of this issue....
I think the recent (October 2007)Airbus Briefing Note on this subject deserves a wider audience - and may also invite some additions to this article. See:  --John.Milner 15:52, 27 February 2008 (CET)