Dick
"Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?"
I don't want to start this thread going round and round in circles, but there is clearly a lot more to both the Benalla and the Lockhart River tragedies than just the GPS RNAV Appr and(or) the way they are set out on the charts.
I am not suggesting that the approaches could not be made more user friendly but the reality is that if flown by the rules, as they are every day, the outcome will be successful - and safe.
"the terrible history of GPS approaches" is taking the role of the the approach out of context, in both cases.
As someone who regularly flies GPSRNAV approaches, including LHR, I find the Benalla crash particularly disturbing because I cannot explain to my satisfaction how the aircraft could have ended up where it did. My only response is to have at least 2 GPSs operating at all times, including a moving map display, and to try to cross reference my position with another aid or ATC radar before descending below MSA.
As I have related previously on this thread, I flew the LHR appr in IMC over the top of the rescue chopper that was hovering over the crash site. However, having now read the ATSB report, the LHR crash is a nil issue with my own flying because I fly to a different set of rules to those apparently in use in that particular cockpit.
Dr