On 14 Apr 2007 06:04:57 -0700, "Mooney" wrote:

I agree that this is easier to just fly the GPS glideslope and my
temptation is to just do it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why
my instructor is adamant that I use the stepdown process.

You'll have to ask him. It may be due to lack of familiarity with the
stabilized approach concept, and its advantages.

Can you be
confident if you fly the glideslope that you will not violate the
minimum altitudes at each stepdown fix?

Yes. However, in the words of a former politician, "Trust, but Verify".

If you are below these BUT ON
THE GS are you legal or does the GS have no legal status?

The GP does not supercede published minimums.

More
importantly is there any safety issue of just flying the GS?

I've not seen an approach with advisory vertical guidance that violates a
stepdown fix. The GP in these instances is, on Jepp charts, represented by
a light dashed line, and a GP angle notation. So, if you are using Jepp
charts, you can verify this.

The only "issue", and it is not unusual in the NE (ME and NH, at least) is
that the marginal WAAS coverage occasionally leads to loss of the WAAS-GP
signal. So then you'll be flying without the GP signal. Not a big deal if
you're ready for it. And, if you are properly set up, you can still
continue down to MDA at the same rate, or perhaps slightly faster.

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