Following the discussion here I wonder what is the danger in doing that.
But a GPS approach will still work of course. It won’t be in the GPS database anymore but you can enter user waypoints (carefully verified) to re-create it.
Then it comes down to obstacles which appear subsequently but I wonder how often this happens – especially at your base which you are very familiar with.
The other main difference is that you won’t get automatic GPS full scale sensitivity switching, to 1nm at 30nm radius and then to 0.3nm gradually after the FAF. You will have to set the 1nm manually and then set the 0.3nm once established on the FAT (final approach track). I wonder if there are GPSs on which accessing this setting is difficult.
The funny Q is whether such an approach can be logged for currency 
I have a selection of no-longer published IAPs, and some were never published because they were approved for use by one operator e.g. a King Air air ambulance operating into an airfield which never had the (UK required) full ATC; such an IAP was the “intellectual property” of that operator. Usually you find the local schools have it and use it for IMCR training 
A navaid is (usually) removed, or if it is working the service contract on it is likely no longer paid up so it may work or not. But you can still fly the surveyed and published profile with a GPS which is what almost everybody was doing originally anyway…
This is exactly why I was trying to find a GPS where you could manually add an approach to the database. A few Czech aerodromes used to have IAPs when in military use but were downgraded to VFR when converted to civilian use (LKHK Hradec Králové, LKPO Přerov and others). Some schools use these IAPs (or self-designed ones) for training purposes in VMC.
I do this at EGBE. All IA have been withdrawn but they are still in the Jepp database. In effect, I let the G1000 fly the NDB approach on GPS (I do have an ADF installed) I have used the old published hold to descend through an overcast or use the DTY direct. I have not yet been in IMC at platform altitude. I cant see any issue with this, as its my home base and can confirm the terrain remains the same and no additional obstacles have been built on approach, and the CT NDB is still in operation. I would perhaps not fly that approach to the previous published minimas maybe 1000 AGL.
Rob2701 wrote:
I would perhaps not fly that approach to the previous published minimas maybe 1000 AGL.
Flying down to 1000’ AGL is not even an approach, merely a cloudbreak :-)
There are old pilots and bold pilots……
Peter wrote:
The funny Q is whether such an approach can be logged for currency
