Multiple instrument approach procedures
 

Over the last two to three years there seems to have been an explosion in the number of near-identical approaches to the same runway. Izmir has six ILS approaches to one runway and Corfu has no fewer than SEVEN runway 35 VOR procedures. For FMS aircraft this isn't helpful since unless you guess lucky it pretty much guarantees a late reprogram and brief.

I can't comment on these specific airfields, but I have seen this at others. In many cases it included ILS U-V-W - X-Y-Z. It depended on the full procedure (even with radar, but it is there for the failure case) and the entry point into the procedure. There were also airfields that used the same entry point, but the ILS ID depended on the G/A routing. In the first case it was obvious which to select, but in the latter you had to confirm the ILS ID before approach. Of course you had already made a guess before TOD and it was a pain if at the IAF you were notified of a change. That is when you found out who needed an FMS or not.
When the less experienced, more computer savy pilot, went straight into the FMC when concentration should have been elsewhere. I asked the question about the NAV Aid back up they had already selected and why. "Because it is an SOP, and to allow raw data navigation in case of FMC failure, I suppose." "In that case why not just change the NAV Aid selection to suit the new G/A routing and use HDG SEL? The Wx is fine; do you expect to make a G/A?" "No", & " Oh yeah, that's an idea."

Here is a site with some older plates for Corfu HvACC Airport Briefing

Quick look seems like its all about the same basic approach track, just different holds and missed tracks everywhere.

Sod's Law says you'll never be able to guess the correct approach. But how difficult is changing the runway and adding to the brief? Less than a minute? And imagine how complicated this would be without FMS.

underfire:

The convention is supposed to be the Z approach has the lowest minimums.

At this airport it is apparent the Greeks have "fine tuned" their traffic management requirements with a slew of VOR approaches that go to the same final approach course with the same minimums.

Agree terpster..Z is supposed to be the lowest..

Yes, same basic final approach and minima, but many inbound/outbound hold patterns and missed tracks.

"How difficult is it..." Really easy, piltdown. But is it not equally easy to miss a discontinuity or misplaced waypoint when the approach has to be hurriedly reprogrammed while simultaneously rebriefing and descending?