Indeed for IFR/IMC in rental aircrafts, I figure out I can fly pure steam (maybe with G430 or GTN/IFD driving some CDI) or go for fully integrated G1000, the various mixes of avionics, pfd, mfd, gps, autopilots, backup here and there would take more than a type rating to get used to, so I tend to keep simple (full steam OR g1000) when renting 
I am sure instructors & examiners are probably thrown in same infinite possibilities that they like to stick to what they know better, however, there is a subset out there who just have no clue what is GPS but they seemed to know a lot about NDB morse code, holds & gates…
The instructor who did my IMC rating in his Archer, it was fitted with GTN & AutoPilot, did regular flying in it IFR in/out of a grass strip to Scotland, he had a different view & opinion on how to use the GPS and also how to fly on IMC/IR ratings, he never cancelled a lesson !
Yes IR(R) training is very different. In mine the GNS430 was only touched insofar as it was also COM1/NAV1 as well as the GPS. I would wager that the instructors were in any case not familiar with any more than the basic functions. Everything I know about any panel GPS, except a brief (and useful) “this is how the DCT function works” before my first solo XC, I have taught myself.
I wasn’t really talking about training though. I was referring to private flight using an IR(R) where actual approaches ‘in anger’ are probably fairly infrequent and where, especially in a rental scenario, familiarity with the more advanced features of the avionics cannot be guaranteed. In this situation I would hypothesise that it’s simpler and safer to use it in the simplest manner necessary to get the job done rather than trying to teach yourself those features as you approach the airport.
I am sure UK ATO ask to load procedural ILS approach in GPS where you press VLOC at the FAF/FAP and you press SUSP at the MAPt
IRR training is different, better not touch GPS especially if instructor/examiner does not like to use it (or database is out of date)
Graham wrote:
You avoid the confusion by not loading the approach in the GNS
I suspect this may be a UK ATO thing. An IFR GPS should ideally have a terrestrial approach loaded to aid situational awareness, both on position relative to FAT, and distance to IF FAF and MAPt. That would normally be SOP in the USA/North America (albeit using FMS on CAT), but appreciate this is not applied throughout Europe.
Emir wrote:
Technically you don’t need but if you have GNS you’ll probably load approach. Then you’ll be potentially confused with different references and headings. Add lack of experience and you have recipe for disaster. I simply wouldn’t want to come in such situation.
You avoid the confusion by not loading the approach in the GNS. Certainly if an inexperienced pilot was having to fly an unexpected approach, say as a result of a diversion, the very last thing I would suggest they do is load the approach in the GNS.
For an IR(R) rated pilot who generally flies instrument approaches quite rarely, there is a lot to be said from a safety point of view for keeping things simple. Dial the ILS frequency in the NAV radio, set up the CDI/HSI to display it, take your radar vectors and fly the plate. Remember that in the UK, where the IR(R) applies, there is virtually nowhere that has GPS approaches as the only option.
I never used to load approaches in the 430 but now we have a 650Xi I do – though only really because the interface is that much better and confusion on what’s being displayed is less likely. Of course you should know your avionics, but that does not mean you have to use all the features all of the time. Some of the GNS features are overkill for simple pilots in simple situations looking to avoid overloading themselves.
I’m a bit late to this, and lots of useful information has been posted already.
To be honest, given the aircraft and setup. I’d just fly it as it is, and add in an electronic horizion backup. be it dynon d3 or a garmin g5. Personally I’d put a g5 in as you do get a lot of features, and I’ve become quite fond of mine.
Definitely keep the vacuum system – see e.g. this.
The DME is very useful; you can fix it by buying a replacement on US Ebay or one of the avionics selling sites out there, probably for $1000 or so. Under this concession (which most UK shops don’t like due to its revenue reducing effect) you don’t need a Form 1 anymore.
I would buy the database sub for the 430W. If you want to fly IFR at all, you should have that, to get current waypoints. Also how long does a 430W display approaches for after database expires? Came up here.
Emir wrote:
Then you’ll be potentially confused with different references and headings.
@Emir the RNP logic counts distance down to the IF FAF and MaPt sequentially, while a DME shows the DME distance to the threshold on an ILS. The final track should be identical, and the distances. The reason for loading an overlay approach is for situational awareness, and to provide correct RNP distances to the approach fixes.
Most SOPs will load the GNSS overlay, while most ATOs do not.
If Part.NCO and CAT require two means of navigation, perhaps the logic applies to loading the GNSS approach while flying a terrestrial navigation approach?
Emir wrote:
You don’t need the database at all. You dial the ILS or VOR frequency and fly the tracks shown on the approach plate.Technically you don’t need but if you have GNS you’ll probably load approach. Then you’ll be potentially confused with different references and headings. Add lack of experience and you have recipe for disaster. I simply wouldn’t want to come in such situation.
When you are flying rentals you tend to just fly raw approach, not loading it in the GNSS…
The few ILS I looked at going UK/France flying DO need GPS, up to date database but I understand no RAIM checks or RNP monitoring final VLOC track…
Toussus is mini-STAR RNP initial approach, Radar vectors, ILS final approach as no one flies procedural with machine gun RT 
LeTouquet is RNP IAF then ILS final track as they have removed NDB/DME !
I expect one will need Radar+ILS or GPS+ILS while pure conventional procedural ILS to disappear with NDB & DME getting removed?
