Narrative:

Being new to GPS approachs, I interpreted the constant angle descent from the FAF to the runway as clearance to the MDA. All other non precision approachs, if an intermediate level off is required, will display a step-down (level off) on the profile view, to draw attention to that fact. Since none appeared on this GPS approach, I assumed my descent was legal. From a human factors standpoint, any time an intermediate level off is required, the profile view should reflect that level off prior to the crossing fix.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C560 FO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE USE OF A GPS CONSTANT ANGLE DSCNT.

Narrative: BEING NEW TO GPS APCHS, I INTERPED THE CONSTANT ANGLE DSCNT FROM THE FAF TO THE RWY AS CLRNC TO THE MDA. ALL OTHER NON PRECISION APCHS, IF AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OFF IS REQUIRED, WILL DISPLAY A STEP-DOWN (LEVEL OFF) ON THE PROFILE VIEW, TO DRAW ATTN TO THAT FACT. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON THIS GPS APCH, I ASSUMED MY DSCNT WAS LEGAL. FROM A HUMAN FACTORS STANDPOINT, ANY TIME AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OFF IS REQUIRED, THE PROFILE VIEW SHOULD REFLECT THAT LEVEL OFF PRIOR TO THE XING FIX.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.