Andu,
I'd also have to agree with 410's interpretation of the directive - you have to use the highest automation available. Therefore GPS is a no-no if ILS is available.
Extending that logic, does that mean there will be no manual landings unless out of limits for an autoland?
Following other people's logic about various FCIs, you could argue that a GPS approach actually uses more automation than an ILS. The FMS DB is used in accordance with the GPS rather than just the ILS on the ground. But that is a sad debate to get into.
On the bus there is no difference in automation between an ILS and a GPS approach apart from the fact that 2 autopilots are selected which is only actually relevant to a Cat II or Cat III approach. You press one button and you are off. I think that one of the more recent edicts (about MAPWP position) lead to lots of selected approaches being flown that were then screwed up. I know I flew selected approaches, when managed were available, through ignorance of the fine print.
The current directive about not practicing NPA approaches is clearly stupid from the safety risk management point of view. You obviously want to practice approaches that may be tricky in clear weather when you can look out of the window, not on a dark night, going into Tabriz with an emergency.
However at EK we have 3 types of pilots, those that are afraid of their own shadows, those that are demi-gods and the average mates. We have guys that will screw the approach up and then still try and get it in at all costs, the demi-gods, which the FCI was designed to rein in. On the other side we have other guys that shouldn't ever fly because they put the "due to an unforseen traffic accident in Satwa we were nearly unstable but were fine by 4,000'" ASRs in.
For the rest of us, is it really such a hardship to walk down the corridor and see Mike to make certain someone else hasn't booked the F3D and then use it?
Ghost