Well, this just shows how differently people fly 
I fly the missed by hand. Max power, 8 deg UP pitch, full right rudder trim, focus on the AI and then the heading bug, gear up, flap 1, then once stable press AP, HDG…
I agree and I think you are right “the universal and sensible way” is by hand bellow 500ft agl, AP/HDG above 500ft agl and AP/NAV when chilling above MSA
As you said +8 on AI with full power & rudder on runway heading straight into soft clouds 
You can safely reach MSA without Navigator guidance and without AP help, if you can’t you have a real problem, this is at least what you do when flying approach & missed and nothing is published or when various “IFR gadgets or screens” goes off and you are back to “RAF cloud flying mode” !
My comment was referring to what you need to have and what need do in front of an IRE (usually in good VMC) to get a signature after flying an RNP ILS…
Above MSA you can fly accurately fly to RNP-ILS IAF and intercept LLZ using “tablet HSI” or “DR NAV” if you wish !
I noticed that my KLN90B coupled to the A/P on tight box RNP approaches has a tendency to overshoot even with turn anticipation on (I have no GPSS enabled on the sandel though the 90 supports roll steering)…..In some cases its better it seems to fly in HDG in mode manually (X-check with MFD like SD overlay) or full manual and select approach mode on the last straight part when in LNAV its goes to 0.3…..On an hybrid approach as above a lot of button pushing and mode X-checking the thing flies what you want :-). Then ATC throws in some shortcuts as cherry on the cake and here you go :-). The GA part I fly with GA button pushed (max pwr focusing on cleaning up the aircraft) in HDG mode, remaining in NAV has a tendency to wiggle…once high enough I select NAV/ATT and fly to the RNAV point as published…if nothing goes its all manual….
To clarify the situation at EHRD a bit – and to let you know the same thing will happen in the future at EHAM, EHGG and EHBK.
The authorities have decided to remove all ground-based beacons (mostly NDBs, but also a few VORs) from the Netherlands, except existing ILS installations, current DMEs (to allow RNAV based on DME/DME triangulation) and four strategic VOR/DMEs (RTM, SPL, MAS and EEL). This means that all approach/departure procedures are currently being redesigned to use RNAV waypoints only. The new procedures went into effect at EHRD this month, and will become available for the other controlled airfields later. So effectively for all the usual procedures at EHRD RNAV1 approval is now required. (For aircraft without RNAV1 capability, under normal circumstances, you can expect radar vectors to the ILS.)
HOWEVER in order to deal with a potential GNSS outage in combination with a COM failure, new approach procedures have been designed for each runway end. In each case this is a VOR/DME-only procedure involving a bunch of holds and procedure turns around the strategic VOR/DME located at or near the airfield. For EHRD that’s the RTM VOR/DME. This single VOR/DME is the holding fix and the IAF, and is used to determine the FAF, final approach track and MAPt. It’s also the only beacon needed for the Missed Approach. Yes, that makes it a convoluted and not very efficient approach, but it’s only needed in case of COM failure with no RNAV1 capability, and for training purposes. The COM failure procedures have also been amended for this: in case of a COM failure and no RNAV1 capability you fly directly to the VOR/DME and commence the approach from there.
More information can be found in the NL AIC 02/2019, currently available here: https://www.lvnl.nl/eaip/2021-08-26-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html (but the URL will change the next AIRAC cycle).
To indicate in your flight plan that you have RNAV capability, your equipment field should list the “R”, so something like SGRY/S. Field 18 then clarifies your RNAV capability further with something like PBN/B2D2S2.
Down here in EASA land, it’s called “RNP ILS”, including in France
“Hybrid ILS” is the “FAA term” as NCYankee pointed (I understand that down there, they don’t and won’t call things “RNP” in the plates in next decades, the US prefers to call things “GPS” or “RNAV” in their plates, so they won’t rename anything as RNP in next 30 years to follow ICAO or EASA renaming conventions, as apparently they think people down here have made a whole dog breakfast out of PBN, which is true )
NCYankee wrote:
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].”
Thanks for the explanation, I must have missed or glossed over NCYankee’s post, which is unusual because I usually study his posts intently as they usually contain good stuff.
Perhaps I just found it complicated and I don’t have a FAA licence.
The FAA LoA (see my earlier link) is an old and complicated concept, from ICAO, connected with certification of GPS navigators and their database formats, or even whole aircraft. It first arrived as a massive dark cloud in Europe under the name PRNAV and threatened to wipe out much of IFR GA, with bizzare requirements like an auto-slewing course pointer (in effect, a mandatory installation of a ~10k EHSI). The US of course sensibly exempted all its pilots (in US airspace) from this stupidity. Eventually, like most things, it largely disappeared but the various people involved obviously could not resist with their continuous job creation campaign and finally it has morphed into what is called RNAV1. The fact that a 50 quid GPS from a camping shop easily delivers RNAV1 accuracy is not allowed to be discussed
Airborne_Again wrote:
a GPS can’t be expected to have the necessary navigational accuracy unless it is certified for RNAV1.
Having RNAV 1 capability does not affect the accuracy of the GPS position. Legacy GPS systems approved for RNAV (GPS) approaches can fly an RNAV 1 track when they have the CDI sensitivity set to Terminal mode or +/- 1 NM full scale. RNP 1 would require RNAV 1 with integrity monitoring and alerting. Most legacy GPS include the integrity monitoring and alerting based on RAIM. The RNP APCH specification supports RNAV 1 navigation for the initial and intermediate segments of an approach and I believe this is the reason why what the FAA calls Hybrid approaches are moving from noting “RNAV 1 – GPS required” to “RNP APCH – GPS required” on their charts. Any aircraft that has a GPS that complies with RNP APCH also supports the RNAV 1 navigation used for the terminal mode transition from enroute to the IAF, the initial leg, and the intermediate leg [edit I forgot to add the missed approach segment as well].
So if a KLN94 is excluded because of terminology, that is plain stupid as it has all the capabilities needed to fly an RNAV segment on a hybrid ILS or LOC procedure.
Yes practically one only needs RNAV1 when flying “away from the ground” on the RNP+ILS, it’s even way better than what one has when they are on radar vectors for approach & missed with RV+ILS
The requirement to have RNP1 is for SID/STAR routes not for “ILS positioning or go-around”, for departures & arrival routes these could be designed on edge of terrain or airspace (at least for departures) but for ILS if one is able to get vectored on radar in/out of ILS with even low radar equipment performance (RNAV2 or RNAV1 at best), then why they need onboard monitoring by RAIM or SBAS for “RNP ILS”? any form of RNAV1 should be just enough
Except if one is getting vectored with 3 radar screens & 3 transponders?
As side question, what one is supposed to do if they get a loss of RNP1 integrity warning on SID? turn back to land
