So, I immediately started thinking, "Just how difficult/accurate can a GPS approach be?", and, in the event of an emergency, i.e. conditions becoming IMC on my return to Aeroden, "WOULD I be able to make a GPS approach and get to within 200ft AGL (hopefully with the ground then visual), and be perfectly lined up with Aeroden 18 for landing?"
With this in mind I set out to test a GPS-approach landing. I started by establishing an EAST and WEST approach to Aeroden 18. A direct-in approach is not possible due to the open-cast platinum mine to the north of Aeroden.
The steps were:
Step 1: Establish the approach paths
Step 2: Establish waypoints along both east and west approach paths (waypoints on final approach was common to both), right down to touch down (TD)
Step 3: By calculating the distance between the waypoints and using a 1:10 glide slope, work backwards from the touch-down (TD) point to determine the altitude of each waypoint
Step 4: Input the waypoints for each approach into the GPS, including the ALTITUDE in the waypoint name, for easy altitude reference when flying the approach.
Step 5: Input GPS approach flight plans for both East and West approaches into GPS.
Here is a video of both EAST and WEST GPS Approaches to Aeroden 18. Flying these GPS approaches I relied 100% on flying to the waypoints shown on the GPS and the respective waypoint altitudes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieRUInMDzc
In BOTH cases the GPS approaches put me down right on the numbers!

Although I accept that flying a "non-visual" approach by VFR-rated pilots is strictly not allowed, having these approach flight plans in my GPS does give me a sense of comfort should I ever get caught out in IMC when returning home after a flight.
Also, I acknowledge that flying a 'visual' GPS approach does not take into account the risks of spatial disorientation as a result of flying in IMC . . . . but

I would appreciate any comments or views.
Safe Skies

John.com