On 13 Apr 2007 19:26:50 -0700, "Mooney" wrote:

I have just recently acquired a Garmin 430/WAAS for my Mooney 201. In
practicing approaches to familiarize myself with the unit, I went up
with an instructor to get some advice/tips. I had flown a GPS overlay
approach (NDB/GPS Runway 5 KLWM, Lawrence MA) previously in VFR
conditions and tracked the vertical guidance provided by the GPS and
loved it ... very stable approach and no need to dive/level/dive etc.

Then I went up with the instructor and did what I thought was a great
approach (also NDP/GPS 5 KLWM) and he was upset I didn't fly it more
like the "original" non-precision approach by identifying fixes with
cross radials and doing the stepdowns.

So that is the question. Which technique should be used and why? If I
give up the "track the GPS glideslope" approach I feel I'm giving up
the advantage of a very stable/controlled approach configuration and
not sure what I'm gaining in return.

Use the stabilized approach because, as you have discovered, it is easier
to fly! Aren't ILS's easier to fly than dive & drive non-precision
approaches? Just don't forget to level off at the MDA. "You" cannot treat
MDA as a DA without special authorization.

Comments from the experts??

Final questions: With the WAAS GPS on this approach, can I descend to
the lower minimum based on identifying the final stepdown fix if I am
just flying the GPS's vertical guidance?

The requirement to identify KRIED is not dependent on how you are flying
the approach. However, if KRIED is in your DB, you can use the GPS to
identify it.

Where are the answers to these questions provided?

Which question?

The issue of stabilized versus D&D approaches is discussed in airline
safety material.

Rules for flying approaches are in the FAR's and AIM.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)