WAAS vs. Non-WAAS GPS

[David Megginson]

One you crash and one you don’t. Listen to that atc tape I posted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a story, not a stat.

 

[gsengle]

That's because non-accidents don't get reported, for singles or twins; it's just the number of fatal accidents for hours flown.

I don't know if that's improved in recent years for twins, but if you want to consider individual reports of successful landings in twins after an engine failure (the majority, I'd hope), you also have to consider that a twin is roughly 2× as likely to have an engine failure as a single is, so they'll have a lot more need to handle them.

I completely understand that there are lots of good reasons for having a twin. I just haven't personally seen the evidence yet (stats, not personal stories) that safety is one of them.

It’s apples and oranges. Twins fly tougher missions. People are more likely to fly twins further, cross country, across water or in low IMC. The twin makes flying low IFR a reasonable thing to do. You can’t mitigate the risk of engine failure in low IMC without equipment. (Second engine or chute). You can mitigate the risks of engine failure in a twin with training. Which has nothing do with IMC. Properly trained, twins have more redundancy than a single. The stats are skewed by those that as GA pilots failed to maintain the required proficiency.

So VERY specifically, to fly low IMC personally I need a twin. Won’t do it in a single. And thus the diminished need for WAAS, which is the original topic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Megginson]

It’s apples and oranges. Twins fly tougher missions. People are more likely to fly twins further, cross country, across water or in low IMC. The twin makes flying low IFR a reasonable thing to do. You can’t mitigate the risk of engine failure in low IMC without equipment. (Second engine or chute). You can mitigate the risks of engine failure in a twin with training. Which has nothing do with IMC. Properly trained, twins have more redundancy than a single. The stats are skewed by those that as GA pilots failed to maintain the required proficiency.

So VERY specifically, to fly low IMC personally I need a twin. Won’t do it in a single. And thus the diminished need for WAAS, which is the original topic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's quite possibly true, but at this point, we can't prove it to be true.

When people die after an engine failure in a piston twin, it's usually because of something they didn't do (fast enough)—get the nose down, get on the rudder, feather the correct prop, etc.

When people die after an engine failure in a piston single, it's usually because of something they did do: try to stretch the glide, turn back to the runway, stop the prop from windmilling, etc.

With its slower stall speed—often only ½ as much energy to disperse in a forced landing—a typical piston single has a very high survival rate if you just land straight ahead (±30°) under control, regardless of what you're heading for. You die most surely by pulling back on the yoke trying to make the plane defy the laws of physics.

So which is safer? It's complicated. Twins fly tougher flights, but also have more-experienced and more-current pilots. The actual stats (vs anecdotes and hypotheses) so far suggest the singles are marginally safer, but as you suggest, there's room for refinement.

And it gets even trickier if we bring chutes into the discussion.

 

[tspear]

In my opinion this gets unfairly talked about in the aviation circles and regurgitated as truth. As a member on the Twin Cessna Owners forum I can tell you of several instances where owners have recently been forced to cage one and landed safely. This never gets reported. If these are never reported then how could any statistics on this topic be relevant/accurate? Don’t get me wrong, training and proficiency are of utmost importance and the second engine is far from a guarantee...just don’t think there are accurate stats on this subject. If my memory is correct, I think @Lance F caged one not too long ago and he’s still with us.

Often in a twin, you cage an engine as a preventive measure where in a single you let the engine run itself to death. For example, I had an oil alert in an Aerostar, I shut down the engine and flew it with a caged engine. In a single, I would just have assumed the engine was going to eat itself and not shut it down. (The actual issue was a wire to the oil pressure sensor shorted out).

Tim

 

[tspear]

So which is safer? It's complicated. Twins fly tougher flights, but also have more-experienced and more-current pilots. The actual stats (vs anecdotes and hypotheses) so far suggest the singles are marginally safer, but as you suggest, there's room for refinement.

And it gets even trickier if we bring chutes into the discussion.

What stats? I have yet to see any stats which do not rely upon huge assumptions.

Tim

 

[David Megginson]

Often in a twin, you cage an engine as a preventive measure where in a single you let the engine run itself to death. For example, I had an oil alert in an Aerostar, I shut down the engine and flew it with a caged engine. In a single, I would just have assumed the engine was going to eat itself and not shut it down. (The actual issue was a wire to the oil pressure sensor shorted out).

Tim

I suspect, either way, you'd plan to land at the nearest usable airport. With the caged engine, you'd have the option to pick one a few minutes further away with better maintenance facilities.

 

[David Megginson]

What stats? I have yet to see any stats which do not rely upon huge assumptions.

Tim

All stats do. The ones we have imperfect, but unsupported hypotheses or individual anecdotes are even less reliable.

It would be good to get more, but as it stands, the evidence suggests twins aren't safer, and might even be slightly riskier. Better stats might turn that conclusion on its head, but wishful thinking won't

 

[tspear]

All stats do. The ones we have imperfect, but unsupported hypotheses or individual anecdotes are even less reliable.

It would be good to get more, but as it stands, the evidence suggests twins aren't safer, and might even be slightly riskier. Better stats might turn that conclusion on its head, but wishful thinking won't

What stats? Every stats I have seen just show that we have NO stats about which is safer. Which was the basis of the article; according to legend started by J. McClellan if memory serves; what started questing the whole premise that twins are safer.

Tim

 

[N747JB]

OP, this thread has gone sideways, as usual. My concern would be paying $140K for a 182 with weak paint and avionics. For that kind of money you should get good avionics with WAAS, ADS-B and good cosmetics. Don’t get caught up in the zero time engine, if it’s a factory reman, great, if it’s a local guy, be wary.
A 182 is a great first or last airplane, I’ve got a 77 Q model!

 

[GaryV]

I have a Cardinal RG with a 430 non WAAS. I fly IFR regularly and want at least an alternate that has an ILS but so far in the 6 years since I’ve gotten my RG the difference in minimums between the LNAV and a VNAV approach has never been a factor for me.

Most of my flying is in Texas so most airports have LNAV minimums of 500’ or so. If I regularly flew someplace where there were bigger differences in the approaches upgrading to a WAAS capable system might move upgrading higher up on the list of things I want to get for the plane.

By the way, I used Gatts in Manhattan, KS for my IFR and strongly recommend them. The week I spent getting my IFR was one of the best ‘vacations’ I ever took and I’ve been confident flying IFR ever since. It’s easy to fly real IMC in the Houston area so it’s pretty easy to stay current.

Good luck on a new plane and getting your IFR

Gary

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We usually advise our pilot/owners, that unless you are going to be frequently flying in actual, and flying at or near approach minimums, don't waste the money on WAAS if you have a perfectly good IFR capable GPS already. Truth is, the majority of GA pilot/owners simply don't do it often enough to justify the expense, or to be comfortable and proficient enough to fly in hard IMC safely.

There's value in WAAS even if you don't fly below LNAV/VNAV minimums:

1) When you do fly an approach - Vertical guidance. Very nice to have, especially if your autopilot can couple to it.
2) Ability to use nearly any airport as an alternate. Without WAAS, your alternate needs to have non-GPS approaches available. That means you may need to select an alternate that's farther away, which means you need to carry more fuel to be legal, which means less payload.
3) If you don't have ADS-B yet, you'll need a WAAS position source. While there are plenty of ADS-B transponders that have their own WAAS source built in for exactly that purpose, that option usually costs about an extra $1K plus installation, so you might as well get something for it instead.

Plus, when the poop hits the prop, you want to be able to get down safely. Having approaches with vertical guidance available at almost every little podunk airport there is makes me feel MUCH better about my prospects when flying single-engine IMC.

As for the OP, in that scenario I'd probably just get the 530W upgrade. It's the cheapest option (should be around $5K installed), and gets the job done. Anything else is going to cost more. If you want something new and shiny, Avidyne IFD540 becomes the least expensive option but that's going to be $15,000.

 

[NordicDave]

There's value in WAAS even if you don't fly below LNAV/VNAV minimums:

1) When you do fly an approach - Vertical guidance. Very nice to have, especially if your autopilot can couple to it.
2) Ability to use nearly any airport as an alternate. Without WAAS, your alternate needs to have non-GPS approaches available. That means you may need to select an alternate that's farther away, which means you need to carry more fuel to be legal, which means less payload.
3) If you don't have ADS-B yet, you'll need a WAAS position source. While there are plenty of ADS-B transponders that have their own WAAS source built in for exactly that purpose, that option usually costs about an extra $1K plus installation, so you might as well get something for it instead.

Plus, when the poop hits the prop, you want to be able to get down safely. Having approaches with vertical guidance available at almost every little podunk airport there is makes me feel MUCH better about my prospects when flying single-engine IMC...

I upgraded my 430 to WaaS for technical reasons. The GNS WAAS versions are getting long term Garmin support, Wanted ADS-B position source and ADS-B Traffic & weather on the panel in addition to the iPad.

Can't imagine flying down to 200' minimums in a single engine airplane, though many do. Just not me. IF engine trouble happens you have to hope when you pop out of the soup you don't hit a barn, house, power lines, etc..

Both of these are reason enough for WAAS, even if a pilot has no intention of flying to 200' minimums.

 

[gsengle]

Both of these are reason enough for WAAS, even if a pilot has no intention of flying to 200' minimums.

Sure. But the way now to get waas isn’t to upgrade that box it’s to get a new one...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NordicDave]

Sure. But the way now to get waas isn’t to upgrade that box it’s to get a new one...

Net new install you're generally right. The OP was buying a plane with a GNS-530 already installed. Getting it updated by Garmin and installing a new WAAS antenna and maybe a new COAX cable is his lowest cost WAAS option. Probably come down to how rich the OP is feeling after buying the plane and what else needs to be fixed or upgraded.

 

[gsengle]

Net new install you're generally right. The OP was buying a plane with a GNS-530 already installed. Getting it updated by Garmin and installing a new WAAS antenna and maybe a new COAX cable is his lowest cost WAAS option.

I’d rather add a Garmin 175 and gain waas for same price. The old units are starting to fall apart...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Megginson]

What stats? Every stats I have seen just show that we have NO stats about which is safer. Which was the basis of the article; according to legend started by J. McClellan if memory serves; what started questing the whole premise that twins are safer.

Tim

It was Richard Collins in 1965, originally. I don't think the stats have changed much, except that piston twins are much less popular than they were half a century ago.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2011/12/50-years-ago-in-air-facts-double-trouble/

Follow-up:

https://airfactsjournal.com/2017/03/whats-wrong-piston-twin-pilots/

 

[gsengle]

It was Richard Collins in 1965, originally. I don't think the stats have changed much, except that piston twins are much less popular than they were half a century ago.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2011/12/50-years-ago-in-air-facts-double-trouble/

Follow-up:

https://airfactsjournal.com/2017/03/whats-wrong-piston-twin-pilots/

Those stats aren’t anything to do with flying low IMC, which was my premise. Greatly added utility. And the danger in twins is lack of proficiency, not random chance, something you can deal with if you choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Megginson]

Those stats aren’t anything to do with flying low IMC, which was my premise. Greatly added utility. And the danger in twins is lack of proficiency, not random chance, something you can deal with if you choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The stats are that twins are (or were) more dangerous than singles over all. At the start of the discussion, I suggested there weren't any stats specifically comparing IFR in twins and singles, so it was dangerous just to assume a priori that twins would be safer. Then I pointed out that people had made the same assumption about twins over singles in general, and it hadn't held up. I think we've closed the circle now. There's no evidence that twins are safer in IFR, just speculation.

 

[gsengle]

The stats are that twins are (or were) more dangerous than singles over all. At the start of the discussion, I suggested there weren't any stats specifically comparing IFR in twins and singles, so it was dangerous just to assume a priori that twins would be safer. Then I pointed out that people had made the same assumption about twins over singles in general, and it hadn't held up. I think we've closed the circle now. There's no evidence that twins are safer in IFR, just speculation.

This effect is due to the general lack of proficiency of GA pilots. Ever seen a single engined airliner? The point was that flying low IMC in a single is poor risk management - you’re rolling dice with no hope of mitigating that risk. All you can do is avoid it - lowering your utility. To do otherwise is just risk taking. But a proficient pilot in a twin takes the exposure you have when flying over low IMC in a single out of the equation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

The stats are that twins are (or were) more dangerous than singles over all. At the start of the discussion, I suggested there weren't any stats specifically comparing IFR in twins and singles, so it was dangerous just to assume a priori that twins would be safer. Then I pointed out that people had made the same assumption about twins over singles in general, and it hadn't held up. I think we've closed the circle now. There's no evidence that twins are safer in IFR, just speculation.

Actually, go back and read the article again. The data is not normalized.
And the reason, the data is not normalized is because we do not have good data.
By far the most key point, you expect twins to show up much better even when not normalized and they do not.

Tim

 

[David Megginson]

This effect is due to the general lack of proficiency of GA pilots.

I'd agree with that. Each step up becomes less forgiving of weekend fliers. Most of the time, a fixed-gear 160/180HP entry-level plane requires you to do something stupid to get hurt. A complex single is slippery, faster, and demands a higher degree of proficiency to hand-fly in IMC, especially after a vacuum failure. A non-inline piston twin demands frequent recurrent sim training (maybe every 6–12 months) to have a hope of staying alive in an asymmetric-thrust event close to the ground.

I'll speculate that they're all equally safe if the pilot has the experience and recency that each type of plane demands. But when the 50 hours/year fixed-gear IFR pilot (like me) doesn't uptime to 100 hours/year after moving to a complex-single, or the 100 hour/year complex-single pilot doesn't uptime to 150 hours/year and start visiting FlightSafety (or similar) regularly, bad things happen.

Ever seen a single engined airliner

Yes, I was a passenger in a Bearskin Airlines Pilatus PC-12 on a scheduled run between YOW and YKZ in 2002.

The point was that flying low IMC in a single is poor risk management - you’re rolling dice with no hope of mitigating that risk.

Back to the original point, I still haven't seen evidence (vs hypothesis) that piston singles have a higher fatal accident rate in IMC than piston twins. Speculation is fine—we all have to act on our hunches sometimes—but it's not evidence others can use.

 

[gsengle]

I'd agree with that. Each step up becomes less forgiving of weekend fliers. Most of the time, a fixed-gear 160/180HP entry-level plane requires you to do something stupid to get hurt. A complex single is slippery, faster, and demands a higher degree of proficiency to hand-fly in IMC, especially after a vacuum failure. A non-inline piston twin demands frequent recurrent sim training (maybe every 6–12 months) to have a hope of staying alive in an asymmetric-thrust event close to the ground.

I'll speculate that they're all equally safe if the pilot has the experience and recency that each type of plane demands. But when the 50 hours/year fixed-gear IFR pilot (like me) doesn't uptime to 100 hours/year after moving to a complex-single, or the 100 hour/year complex-single pilot doesn't uptime to 150 hours/year and start visiting FlightSafety (or similar) regularly, bad things happen.

Yes, I was a passenger in a Bearskin Airlines Pilatus PC-12 on a scheduled run between YOW and YKZ in 2002.


The point was that flying low IMC in a single is poor risk management - you’re rolling dice with no hope of mitigating that risk. All you can do is avoid it - lowering your utility. To do otherwise is just risk taking. But a proficient pilot in a twin takes the exposure you have when flying over low IMC in a single out of the equation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I've been a passenger in a Bearskin Airlines flight between[/QUOTE]

Airliner. Not 135 commuter operation. And that risk is deemed more acceptable because it is a turbine which is significantly more reliable. Note that that sort of operation isn’t legal in Europe for instance...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Megginson]

Airliner. Not 135 commuter operation. And that risk is deemed more acceptable because it is a turbine which is significantly more reliable.

Not sure how FAA regs map to Canadian regs, but it was a scheduled airline flight, not air taxi. Agreed that it's a very rare case, and that turbines are far more reliable than pistons.

I don't think Bearskin is using the PC-12 on regular scheduled flights any more, 18 years later; I just thought it was funny that I could honestly answer "yes".

And the regs are somewhat out of date—as you point out, the single turbine on the PC-12 is more reliable than the two piston engines on the DC-3s that another small Canadian airline was using until recently for scheduled service (they've had at least a couple of forced landings).

 

[John Myers]

The downside of the Avidyne? There are too many ways to do the same thing and it’s hard to come up with a system. Wierd but true, for me.

This is a UX antipattern and a red flag that software developers and/or product owners likely had the final call on the UI instead of professional user experience designers.

Anytime there is more than one way to do something there should be a clear and justified reason why. It’s frustrating to see UIs over complicated in this way. Garmin Pilot does this with viewing and editing a flight plan, you can view it in at least four places (including two at the same time on top of each other) and edit it in as I recall three.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

This is a UX antipattern and a red flag that software developers and/or product owners likely had the final call on the UI instead of professional user experience designers.

Anytime there is more than one way to do something there should be a clear and justified reason why. It’s frustrating to see UIs over complicated in this way. Garmin Pilot does this with viewing and editing a flight plan, you can view it in at least four places (including two at the same time on top of each other) and edit it in as I recall three.

I guess on the upside, I can stab a frequency in any number of ways, and I use many of them. I can use the screen touch pad, I can use the dials/knobs, I can use the keyboard, and I can use my iPad. I think it’s actually fine, just I’m the type that likes to learn one way. It just feels like I’m not using a system, but sometimes it’s easier to use the screen, other times I like using it like a KX155. And that’s just the radio tuning options. There are preselects too.

 

[N1120A]

Folks leave out the selling a 530 is still viable.

 

[gsengle]

Not sure how FAA regs map to Canadian regs, but it was a scheduled airline flight, not air taxi. Agreed that it's a very rare case, and that turbines are far more reliable than pistons.

I don't think Bearskin is using the PC-12 on regular scheduled flights any more, 18 years later; I just thought it was funny that I could honestly answer "yes".

And the regs are somewhat out of date—as you point out, the single turbine on the PC-12 is more reliable than the two piston engines on the DC-3s that another small Canadian airline was using until recently for scheduled service (they've had at least a couple of forced landings).

Not air taxi, 135 commuter. I was a captain for such an operation, personally prefer a twin for such. 135 commuter means scheduled service ten seats or less. Air taxi is on demand, has different regs...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Palmpilot]

I am considering the purchase of the C182. It has most of what I want, except it has a non-WAAS Garmin 530. It has a Century 2000 A/P that can couple for ILS approaches. I have my PPL, and will be starting my IR with this airplane. I understand the difference between WAAS and non-WAA. Is a WAAS capable GPS something I will really will wish I had in the next 2-4 years?

I'm surprised that forty-year-old 182s have gotten that expensive, but I haven't been following the market.

 

[David Megginson]

I guess on the upside, I can stab a frequency in any number of ways, and I use many of them. I can use the screen touch pad, I can use the dials/knobs, I can use the keyboard, and I can use my iPad. I think it’s actually fine, just I’m the type that likes to learn one way. It just feels like I’m not using a system, but sometimes it’s easier to use the screen, other times I like using it like a KX155. And that’s just the radio tuning options. There are preselects too.

To be fair, you can tune a frequency in multiple ways using the Garmin GTN as well:

- knobs only (no touchscreen interaction)
- enter the frequency on a touchscreen keyboard
- transfer a frequency from an airport/navaid in the flightplan to standby
- search for the nearest <whatever>
- pull from a list of saved frequencies

I use the physical knobs exclusively for frequency tuning/swapping com and nav frequencies on my GTN 650, because I find it very fast. I actually like the touchscreen, and find it far faster for entering waypoints in a flightplan (knob spinning for each letter is a nightmare I never want to go back to), but for frequencies, it's a good user interface. In flight, almost all of my interaction with the GTN is tuning/swapping frequencies as I cross into different ATC sectors, and the touchscreen doesn't come into play at all for that (for me). I might get one ATC rerouting, and have to select an approach near the end, but seriously — we're supposed to be flying the plane, not the avionics. Doing much else with your GPS navigator is a distraction. The interface should matter only when you're playing with it on the ground.

 

[gsengle]

I'm surprised that forty-year-old 182s have gotten that expensive, but I haven't been following the market.

Many would say that 172s and 182s are ridiculously priced compared to say roughly comparable pipers... Historically I’ve speculated that it’s because people unadventurously buy what they trained in...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sac Arrow]

A non-WAAS 530 is weak avionics?

Sheesh, some people rely on wheelchairs for crutches. Sheesh, spend an AMU or so and get a Stratus with Foreflight and bam, you have synthetic vision. If you need.

 

[gsengle]

A non-WAAS 530 is weak avionics?

Sheesh, some people rely on wheelchairs for crutches. Sheesh, spend an AMU or so and get a Stratus with Foreflight and bam, you have synthetic vision. If you need.

But please please don’t try and use it outside of an emergency to approach to 200 and 1/2....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonchie]

As for the OP, in that scenario I'd probably just get the 530W upgrade. It's the cheapest option (should be around $5K installed), and gets the job done. Anything else is going to cost more. If you want something new and shiny, Avidyne IFD540 becomes the least expensive option but that's going to be $15,000.

Noway IMO.

You can get a GNS175 or 375 installed for under 10k.

Sell the 530 (people still buy them) and get something that isn’t already way obsolete.

 

[Sac Arrow]

But please please don’t try and use it outside of an emergency to approach to 200 and 1/2....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about my steam gauges?

Look, I think WAAS GPS is great, and I'm a big proponent, but I do not want to fly as a passenger with the pilot that considers it minimum to get the job done.

 

[gsengle]

How about my steam gauges?

Look, I think WAAS GPS is great, and I'm a big proponent, but I do not want to fly as a passenger with the pilot that considers it minimum to get the job done.

What’s wrong with steam gauges? I’ve flown many approaches to 1800 rvr with just the needles. Don’t care if it’s ILS or LPV. But either way it’s certified equipment before I trust my life to it. LPV is probably a more stable signal generally tho...

WAAS has nothing to do with pretty screens synthetic vision and all that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sac Arrow]

What’s wrong with steam gauges? I’ve flown many approaches to 1800 rvr with just the needles. Don’t care if it’s ILS or LPV. But either way it’s certified equipment before I trust my life to it. LPV is probably a more stable signal generally tho...

WAAS has nothing to do with pretty screens synthetic vision and all that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay I guess I didn't understand your point. I would assume that the 182 in question was equipped with such. I thought you were trying to convey to the OP that WAAS GPS was a basic requirement for low IFR.

 

[David Megginson]

A non-WAAS 530 is weak avionics?

Sheesh, some people rely on wheelchairs for crutches. Sheesh, spend an AMU or so and get a Stratus with Foreflight and bam, you have synthetic vision. If you need.

If you already have an old 530 or 530W, keep it—it will still get the job done, if a little awkwardly; if you don't already have one, don't waste money buying and installing worn-out tech that's already 21 years out of date.

That seems simple enough.

 

[gsengle]

Okay I guess I didn't understand your point. I would assume that the 182 in question was equipped with such. I thought you were trying to convey to the OP that WAAS GPS was a basic requirement for low IFR.

I was trying to convey that I wouldn’t spend good money to upgrade an old 430/530 at this point, and that LPV capability while nice, imho isn’t terribly important in this case. One generally has an ILS nearby to use as an alternate if the weather goes down and imho, a light *single* - due to the risk that cannot be mitigated (unless you have a chute or second engine) from low IMC combined with possible engine failure - shouldn’t be flown in conditions where an LPV approach is your only option anyway...

Evidently the 182 in question was never upgraded to WAAS...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Noway IMO.

You can get a GNS175 or 375 installed for under 10k.

Yeah, but what do you do with the gaping hole that's left behind?

Also, I'd rather not trade "up" to a much smaller screen, personally. But yes, if you don't mind a smaller screen and the loss of a nav radio, the Garmin 355 GPS/Com might be cheaper than the Avidyne. Emphasis on might - The installation cost of the Avidyne when coming from a GNS is near zero.

 

[tspear]

How about my steam gauges?
Look, I think WAAS GPS is great, and I'm a big proponent, but I do not want to fly as a passenger with the pilot that considers it minimum to get the job done.

And the flip is also true. I would never fly with someone who does NOT know how to use GPS/NAV and know the differences between LP, LPV, VNAV, LNAV.....
At the end of the day; ILS, GPS/WAAS, VOR are all tools. However, the FAA has decided to go in the direction of GPS/WAAS and remove move and more ground based approaches. As such, om the east coast we are seeing a rapid removal of VOR approaches. This means, unless you always fly into larger airports you will have very limited landing options.

Tim