rudestuff:
"Charging for RNAV would be blatant fraud".
I tend to agree with you.
Seven years ago Shoreham was selected as one of the trial airfields for making GPS approaches by the CAA and they advertised for suitably-equipped aircraft owners to engage in a trial (which was run, if I remember correctly, by Leeds University).
I volunteered.
Having been a professional pilot for some 50 years, I saw this as a way for the CAA to drag itself into the 21st century and perhaps join the FAA who have had RNAV approaches for years.
At one point in the trials, I had cause to call the chap who was co-ordinating all the paperwork at the CAA and ask him just how many GPS approaches he had actually done?
"None" came the response.
"Right then" said I "get your arse down to Shoreham and we shall do some".
So, we tried to set up a time and a date and then came the next problem.
He couldn't fly before 1700 for the CAA had forbidden him to fly during his working day with me because I didn't have an AOC so therefore he would not be covered by CAA insurance.
So it was that the young man and I went flying and we flew several GPS approaches. He was a very nice young man (who had a PPL) and he spent a lot of time taking photographs of my Garmin 430.
Imagine my astonishment when the RNAV approach for Shoreham was finally approved that it was contingent upon the Shoreham NDB being serviceable for that is what the dinosaurs had decided was to be the MAP!
So what is the bloody point in having an RNAV approach if it depends upon an NDB (or ATC for that matter).