Barry wrote:
I'd fly an ILS over a GPS any day if I was PP. I WOULD use the GPS to give
me a better indication of the heading as opposed to the compass, but why
give up the lower minimums and greater accuracy offered by an ILS,


Because the GPS approach is easier to fly - less chance of going to full-scale
deflection.

If you aren't proficient enough to fly an ILS to minimums on partial
panel, then you probably shouldn't fly in IMC until you get some
refresher instruction. I don't know what GPS you use, but the old King
89B I use is a lot harder to set up for an approach than is the ILS. If
I was flying partial panel, I'd much rather twist in a frequency, ID and
be done, than have to pull up the airport from the active page, dial
down to the proper approach, load it up, and then be sure I remembered
to select OBS mode during vectors, then LEG more before the FAF, watch
all of the intermediate descent altitudes, etc. The ILS is just so much
simpler and it is more accurate to boot (I know, this is being changed).

I still don't consider GPS approaches to be progress over the good old
ILS and even VOR approaches. I realize the advantage of having
approaches at airports that had none before, and that is certainly a big
advantage. I just wish the engineers at King were pilots! I'm an
engineer, so I feel I can say this ... the KLN-89B definitely seems to
have been designed by an engineer and for an engineer, not by a pilot
and for a pilot.

I understand the new glass displays are much improved in user
friendliness, but I've yet to have the good fortune to fly behind one.


Matt