"But would you really fly an approach that you've "built" down to minimums and be the first one to see if it works? Or doesn't. "
Most probably not would be my answer at this stage.
- my thoughts - if no non-precision approach - or overlay as appropriate is in the database why could you not build an LNAV track to replicate the approach. Your choices - a blank map and raw data - in a big boeing using HDG SEL and VS. Or build an LNAV track - let it fly LNAV monitoring raw data - you now have a display for situational awareness, and you shouldnt have to fiddle with the HDG knob every few seconds when the wind changes, or you havent got the HDG/drift quite right....
Capn Bloggs:
Remember you still must monitor raw data. The approach must be flown ie Alt constraints etc as per the NDB chart - (or company requirements) - all VNAV and LNAV are doing is reducing the workload, to allow you to monitor and manage the approach - an ILS overlay which has the same exact lateral tracking should be fine (the melbourne ILS overflys BOL and ROC) - and as ILSs tend to fly 3 degree approaches then VNAV should be appropriate.
Woodpecker:
"Passed the Cb, we were cleared present position direct to the VOR"
I must have missed something in the cleareance - or was it "cleared to the VOR to resume the STAR"?
I am not familiar with the area you are talking about - the terrain ATC or otherwise.
If you are cleared direct - surely you are no longer on the STAR. Which presumably means the Atl constraints are no longer valid. So you need minimum safe altitudes from somewhere.....the original STAR constraints may not protect you if you are off track - they may in fact be higher.