Agreed. Is there some particular reason though that your observation is more true for this feature than for any other feature the experimental vendors are providing?
I felt considerably outnumbered on this, so avoided posting for a bit, but I'll jump back in with an hypothesis here...
I would posit that it's the similarity in nomenclature, symbology, method, look and feel of what might be called a "synthetic precision approach" or "synthetic ILS" to an *actual* precision approach procedure which could foster a more "lenient" attitude on the part of the user towards accepting and using the feature under the "wrong" circumstances (e.g., in actual IMC, or when flying in conditions which require flight solely by reference to instruments, such a dark night with little or no outside visual reference points).
Imagine a more "advanced" feature in this class...let's call it "Synthetic Precision Approach" or SPA...which I, the experimental avionics developer decide to make available. Here's what I'm offering in the unit I'm trying to sell you: for any runway at any airport, a menu item allows you to select this SPA feature; when selected, the system creates a 3.0 degree glideslope to the touchdown zone, plus synthetic IAF, FAF, MAP and a Missed, Approach Procedure which takes you to some fix/navaid/point of your choice, and it even throws in a "hold". I don't call them that, of course, but instead I call them something else (maybe "Synthetic Initial Fix", "Synthetic Final Fix", etc.). I toss in symbology that looks similar to the ILS "feathers" depicted on an approach plate. I do this all automatically, but maybe you can select a different glideslope. The system includes lateral and vertical guidance (HITS, HSI CDIs, whatever). I tell you "now, don't use this except in VFR, because it's not a *real* ILS".
This is all very doable, and I could even crib up these poitns in conformance with the specs for an ILS approach. "Great!", you say. "That'll help my situational awareness! And I can use it to practice my ILS skills at non-precision airports!" Right?
True, and it might be useful in setting up nice approaches to runways without any ILS.
Think there might be people out there that would use this in IMC? Looks like an ILS, feels like an ILS, I told you it's as accurate as one, and within the FAA specs for one...heck, why not?
What I *didn't* do was survey it, check it for obstructions, terrain clearance, things penetrating those imaginary surfaces that define the approach areas, etc., for every airport in the world.
I propose that I've set up a tool that is *asking* to be used under the wrong circumstances, and likely to get someone killed.
My example is quite a bit beyond a simple "synthetic approach" as we're talking here, but is this not a logical next step in the level of sophistication in such a feature?
OK, I'm ready to get blasted now
and if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it...but for now, I'm still of the opinion that there are instrument approaches and there are things that are not instrument approaches, and the two should not be confused.