greater precision on the Approach Profile
Does it?
Can you provide a reference for it?
According to Flight Safety, it does for a VOR or GPS approach. You can check with them. I just did.
how do you think that technique is going to work while on the final approach segment, a stiff tail wind, and then the need to start maneuvering for the landing runway? (circle approach)
I submit the exact same sequence might be used; only difference is the MDA/DA will be at the published Circle to Land altitude, which is designed to allow for maneuver to the Landing Runway. VNAV will get you there; Dive and Drive requires you to assure you'll arrive in time to Drive.
My only point here is that a consistent sequence, across approach types, seems to me to be a desirable thing. Whether it's an ILS or a GPS you are required to reconfigure at DA/MDA. If you don't on an ILS, you're going to auger in; if you don't on a GPS or VOR, you're going to stall...and auger in.
So, knowing that you MUST take action at (or approaching MDA), why not fly the (more stabilized) VNAV toward the MDA, initiating the GA decision when applicable? Just like an ILS. Same procedures. Same sequence.
I realize we're talking King Air's here and I'm interloping with discussion of the P180. But I can tell you, the P180 does NOT provide very much forward visibility in the "Drive" portion of a Dive and Drive approach. Here's a great article on why that type of sequence is no longer in favor:
From Non-Precision to Precision-Like Approaches
I don't find it curious that Beech might have a different manual of arms on this issue than does Piaggio. Perhaps the P180 is not as well suited to a Dive and Drive approach configuration. Perhaps it simply demonstrates that the experts differ in opinion also. That would mean nobody is wrong. ;-)