Oh there's all sorts of cool technology out there for flying - the problem is:
a) it needs ot be proven over and over and over before it can go "live"
For example: The guy who built Brantley helicopters (I believe) wanted to use the throttle cable from a 182 in his new helicopter (this was back in the 60s). The FAA wouldn't allow him to use an already certificated cable because he was (shock) going to use it in a helicpter - never mind the fact that the engine he was attaching to was the same engine used in the 182, even the same friggin mounts! So, the FAA made this guy put his helicopter with an already certificated engine and throttle cable through 1,000 flight hours to just prove it would "work" in a helicopter.
b) it costs money to upgrade entire fleets of aircraft and
When management sits down and takes out their bonuses for the year they look at the remaining money (cheap shot, I know) and have to decide whether or not the benefit of flying 0/0 approaches outweighs both the cost of upgrading the equipment and the liability. No matter the technology 0/0 is still more risky than a "no below 10 and greater than 6" visual day.
c) (probably the biggest) most of this stuff is trapped in the limbo that is known as FAA Certification.
See the first example.
