I've always wondered why we are required to use a VOR to fly a VOR approach instead of a panel mounted GPS such as the Garmin 430W? If you select a VOR approach on the GPS you will get a reminder that you must select VLOC before reaching the FAF, So then you're using the VOR signal for guidance instead of the far more accurate GPS.
The VOR A at 1H0 starts at FTZ, which is almost 17 nm from the field. An error of only one degree puts you 1,500 off course at the runway. Realistically you might easily be 1/2 mile or more off line with a VOR, while the WAAS enabled GPS brings you to the right spot.
What I do is leave the 430W in the GPS mode for guidance, and tune the No. 2 navcom to FTZ to be legal. The two CDIs never agree of course, so am I supposed to follow the less accurate signal just because the regulations say so?
1H0 has two LPV approaches, yet when coming from the VOR you must use this old, less accurate technology. Years ago this approach was labeled "VOR or GPS". Now it's just VOR. The same is true at many other airports. There must be a reason.
The VOR A at 1H0 starts at FTZ, which is almost 17 nm from the field. An error of only one degree puts you 1,500 off course at the runway. Realistically you might easily be 1/2 mile or more off line with a VOR, while the WAAS enabled GPS brings you to the right spot.
What I do is leave the 430W in the GPS mode for guidance, and tune the No. 2 navcom to FTZ to be legal. The two CDIs never agree of course, so am I supposed to follow the less accurate signal just because the regulations say so?
1H0 has two LPV approaches, yet when coming from the VOR you must use this old, less accurate technology. Years ago this approach was labeled "VOR or GPS". Now it's just VOR. The same is true at many other airports. There must be a reason.
