I think the
procedures are fine, just some pilots haven't spent the same amount of time practicing them before using one in anger. It's definitely not the same as a VOR or NDB approach due mainly to the ability to put a turn into any part of it.
If pilots practiced ~50 GPS approaches before using one in IMC(like they do for NDBs before sitting their Instrument Rating initial issue) I think there would be both more acceptance of GPS and it's specific terminology as well as widespread rejection of NDBs. At least if the RAIM fails it actively tells you, whereas an NDB could fail and if you don't have the volume up
and notice the lack of ident, or some visual sign pops up, you could easily continue somewhere you don't want to. Even when they DO work it's only an approximate direction. I've flown four NDB approaches in VMC (thankfully) in the last three months with perfectly good instruments that have put us over two miles off track.
And you can couple an autopilot to a GPS, but not to an ADF! (and why would you want to, it'd make you sick with all the swinging...
)
I agree with Centaurus though, I'd like to see the distance to MAPt as one constant throughout the approach, put the "DTMA" under each waypoint on final by all means but one steadily counting down distance is easier for the brain, especially at night in poo when you're tired.