RobertL18C wrote:
Why EASA/CAA UK do not allow GPS overlay procedures based on an IFR GPS procedure database (ie not diy) is a mystery, given that the FAA with a higher safety record has allowed them for decades.
EASA plans to! From 2022 Q2, see NPA 2020-02, Fix substitution, NCO.IDE.A.195(a), except for the FAT: “The area navigation system should not be used: (1) for substitution of the navigation aid (for example, a VOR or NDB) providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment”.
johnh wrote:
Thoughts on what (a) I would legally need to do and (b) what I should actually do?
Nothing. If you can fly a GPS approach (LPV with the 530W) or divert to a field that is VMC (cancel IFR) it is fine.
It has been U.K. airline practice for the last twenty years or so to fly non Precision approaches using the FMS ( GPS, DME/DME & IRS derived position data ) using the autoflight system. However the Raw data from the radio aids needed for the approach must be displayed as this is the data that the approach is built around and certified for.
Using the certified data is important so much so that DME/DME updates for the FMS are turned off when making a GPS approach to avoid the use of the incorrect data.
fly non Precision approaches using the FMS
I hear from airline pilots this has been standard for many years. You get an “ILS” into every Greek island 
Using the certified data is important so much so that DME/DME updates for the FMS are turned off when making a GPS approach to avoid the use of the incorrect data.
Now that is really interesting, but I can well imagine that when flying the RNP into LOWI you probably just want the INS running on its own
I think the answer to @johnh is that he is fine as he is now. DME may be required in “upper airspace” in some places but that is FL200+. And apart from distant and never-verifiable rumours of ramp checks by well briefed inspectors (which could only be Germany, IMHO) nobody ever checks the equipment. European IFR is 100% GPS, with some sort of IAP at the far end (which could be a “classic” one, but you still fly those with a GPS although you are supposed to carry the equipment specified for the IAP; the obvious exception is an ILS which you never fly with a GPS). Having an RNAV1 GPS (a GNS430 rather than a KLN94) is helpful because there are SIDs and STARs which are not in the pre-RNAV1 databases (like mine).
Personally, I would never give up my DME. Mine has just packed up and a replacement is on order already. It’s not cheap to buy new ($13k for a KN63) but there are countless options, with most of US GA chucking them out. ADF is basically useless; it is great when pointing at the NDB (like some wx forecasts actually). VOR I have also never used but could do as a backup to wide area GPS jamming and it costs nothing. ILS I would absolutely never give up; it is the best that most of Europe has to offer (LPV is widely available only in some places). ILS is absolutely essential for IFR in Europe, unless you fly just in one country (France might be an example).
Personally I can never see why anyone would pull out a perfectly working DME when they upgrade a panel. Its so easy to use.
And apart from distant and never-verifiable rumours of ramp check
Not so distant, UK airports do monitor the equipment declaration in the flight plan, and will potentially MOR an incident where an aircraft flew an approach without the required equipment.
I can never see why anyone would pull out a perfectly working DME
Unfortunately the old gas LEDs which have survived well beyond their design life are finally giving up the ghost. If you are doing a proper spring clean up, including re wiring, better to junk thirty-forty year old kit. Remote DMEs can and should be retained, you would rewire to the new NAV boxes anyway.
Of course, you always declare the required equipment in the FP 
Peter
My policy for Greek islands is to physically manipulate the controls with reference to the cockpit’s six large reality displays.
Peter wrote:
And apart from distant and never-verifiable rumours of ramp checks by well briefed inspectors (which could only be Germany, IMHO) nobody ever checks the equipment.
Except (and this is a big but) something happens and the insurance figures out that you have flown an approach without the required equipment…
An accident report for a runway excursion in EDDS has just been published where one of the contributing factors explicitly mentioned is the lack of a DME while trying to fly an approach that requires a DME. It is not easy to program even a modern GPS properly so that it actually shows the distance to the DME as published in the approach chart and not the distance to some airport reference point that can be substantially off. In the case of the accident report that led to the situation that the pilot ended up far too high and too fast on the approach as he believed to be further away from the threshold than he actually has been and finally to him getting hopelessly behind the plane from which he never recovered until he hit the airport fence.
Therefore: You might not get caught if you brake the law by flying an approach that requireds DME without one – but it is a seriously stupid idea and can in the end cost you lot of money if not more.
Thre have certainly been plenty of comments in accident reports of somebody not having the papers, the equipment, etc, but this does not mean the insurance did not pay out. I have never seen any such report.
Admittedly almost nobody will openly post about their own misfortune – except this one (published by the son of the pilot who died, who I knew well) but the factor there is nothing to do with equipment, and is rather controversial because it shows that insurance can be worthless, in some countries.
One hears plenty of rumours about insurance not paying out but any current ones are always unverifiable. One gets old ones like the famous 1970s Graham Hill case. I could post some of these, but it’s risky because somebody might read it and tell somebody (yes this happens a lot on forums ) and then we get hassle. Well, there was one involving an incident on the ground which was probably deliberate (destroyed the aircraft) and the insurer thought so and reportedly didn’t pay out. I hear maybe a dozen of these a year. But I have never heard even the slightest rumour of insurance non-payout over equipment carriage. Perhaps this is because most of the people who kill themselves do so over something more basic, like e.g. this.
And remember the EASA regs state equipment carried but never equipment to be used (in the private flying context). AOC ops are different.
