Not at all.
If you don’t have a DME then you absolutely cannot obtain DME distance. The best you can do is hope to have a GPS waypoint whose location is DME=0. And they aren’t common; a DCT to “LKPR” doesn’t give you DME distance for the ILS24 
But a KLN94 has all the RNAV waypoints. You just can’t load the procedure in one go. You have to load the individual waypoints. Here. In terms of the actual flight it is exactly like an RNAV1 box e.g. a GTN, IFD, etc.
I would think that the KLN94 could be used to fly the RNAV portion of the procedure to join a conventional procedure, even though the RNAV 1 specification is shown. Unlike an RNAV SID or STAR where the procedure is not found in the KLN94 database, there is no requirement that the waypoints on a conventional procedure need to be included as a procedure in the database, The pilot would need to set the CDI course width to +/- 1 NM or keep the track contained to that deviation, In the US, the current charting standard is to specify RNP APCH – GPS in the PBN equipment box. The KLN94 meets the RNP APCH – GPS PBN specification. Here is the FAA guidance as to what is to be charted for a hybrid approach.
c. Hybrid approach procedure. A hybrid is an ILS approach procedure or a LOC approach procedure that has one or more PBN segments.
(1) Apply paragraph 8-6-8.a to determine any required equipment requirement notes for segments using ground-based NAVIDs.
(2) Annotate the PBN NavSpec and sensor requirements for the PBN portion(s) of the hybrid procedure as follows:
(a) If the missed approach segment, or the intermediate segment, or all initial segment is PBN-based, and none incorporate an RF leg, then enter PBN Requirements note: “RNP APCH – GPS.” If multiple initials incorporate both PBN and ground-based segments, enter PBN Requirements note “RNP APCH – GPS. FROM [IAF name]” or for multiple PBN segments “RNP APCH – GPS FROM [IAF name] or [IAF name].”
Note that the reason the BK KLN94 does not meet the requirements for RNAV 1 SIDs and STARs is because it does not support a Course to Fix path terminator as a part of a SID or STAR procedure in the database, but a CF is not required for the hybrid approach.
I have done LeTouquet “hybrid ILS” early this month, I was not excepting they would go for “RNP ILS” after removing NDB (see Notams & picture of NDB KO from 3 years ago), I understand one can still fly it as RV+ILS without GPS (RNP APCH) capability but they need Lille ATC Radar Vectors on approach and missed, probably one can fly it without DME (not fitted or when Notamed U/S sometimes) if LeTouquet TWR ATC are around to give ranges & altitude checks on radar (as one will be bloody low to get Lille on Radar & Comms), obviously, only down to 600ft agl & 2nm as radar stops workinv after that (honestly anyone flying ILS 13, 13 with big letters, beyond 666ft should get a DME that reads 0nm on thresholds, it’s the only single thing that works and save someone’s skin when they get near ground, nothing beats a single tool like DME that tells you exactly when sh**t happens), however, there is RNP13 with same waypoints and minima as well but one needs SBAS and LPV annunciation…
This setup now is the only game in town near Paris as any ILS is de facto flown as in three parts as RNP+RV+ILS
The way how buttons should be pressing in Navigator or Autopilot while on such coupled approach is far from being intuitive especially if one adds IAF approach or Radar vectors clearance, ILS/LOC flying then visual manoeuvring or circling CTL/MVL followed by missed approach on GPS, some fingers gymnastics
The day when LT NDB went KO, before and after !
So basically for procedural-only you need the RNAV waypoints but don’t legally require an RNAV1 certified GPS.
Peter wrote:
So basically for procedural-only you need the RNAV waypoints but don’t legally require an RNAV1 certified GPS.
How do you come to that conclusion? Legally speaking (not in practise, I know), a GPS can’t be expected to have the necessary navigational accuracy unless it is certified for RNAV1.
Peter wrote:
above
Ok, for the case of a box approved for approaches, which I guess are all modern GPS boxes.
NCYankee wrote:
SIDs and STARs is because it does not support a Course to Fix path terminator as a part of a SID or STAR procedure in the database, but a CF is not required for the hybrid approach
Gotcha, Course-to-Fix is not required but does it also need to support waypoints for FlyBy vs FlyOver? the initial IAP is likely FlyOver but those for missed MAP are FlyBy, surely these can be mannually monitored by pilot while pressing Direct-To or ActivateLeg on any FPL waypoints list including those for Hybrid ILS without even having the RNP ILS loaded from the database
Can one just fly this with an up to date list of the approach & missed waypoints and CDI range = +/-1nm?
What is a hybrid ILS? I don’t remember ever coming across one.
See the example at LeTouquet LFAT ILS13: it’s GPS+ILS with 3*IAF for initial approach clearance then missed approach flown on GPS SUSP mode
You can also look at Toussus LFPN ILS25, it’s INA RNP on GPS (either mini-STAR or direct overhead LFPN followed by reverse LOC backcourse on RNAV), then radar vectors, then ILS, but it’s split on few pages depending where do you come from
