"Richard Kaplan" wrote in
:

Well, you may well be right about that one. Of course, it does put
perspective on the apparent "advantages" we were originally "sold"
about GPS approaches -- I recall reading as far back as 10 years ago
about how we would have "approaches to every airport" and "ILS-type
minimums to even small airports." Well, it seems to be that the
reality is that adding a first approach is very difficult for airports
which have none, whereas for airports with existing approaches the
reduction in minimums with a GPS approach will be minimal if any over
the curent portfolio of approaches. The strongest argument seems to be
simply the cost reduction to the government if they can decommission
navaids.

If you want an approach, the airport management has to push to get it.
Approaches don't just happen, they have to be actively supported. We've
been trying to get a GPS approach from the south at my home airport, but
since that's over the Gulf, nobody else cares, so it's not happening, even
though we've been pushing the airport manager. If he does nothing, the FAA
does nothing. We drew up the approach, and all the FAA has to do is fly &
approve it, but nothing has happened in over 3 years. Nothing happens
quickly in the FAA's world except for violations.

--
Regards,

Stan